[SimonFa]

IMPs, W v R

1M (X) XX

I think it falls in to GBK that the redouble specifically denies support and about 10+ HCP but is it acceptable to redouble with something like 0445 and about 11 points?

It came up in the MBC and I just wondered if the redouble should promise any holding in the major at all.

Thanks in advance,

Simon

[aguahombre]

IMO, if the redouble of 1MX is used in the traditional "denies fit" way ---as seems to be what the OP is asking, a void in the major opened must be a possibility and could be done with the 0-4-4-5 eleven count, in addition to other patterns ---like game-forcing one-suiters.

It seems necessary without other gadgets over the double....which I hope this thread won't hijack into.

[HighLow21]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-11, 10:03, said:

IMO, if the redouble of 1MX is used in the traditional "denies fit" way ---as seems to be what the OP is asking, a void in the major opened must be a possibility and could be done with the 0-4-4-5 eleven count, in addition to other patterns ---like game-forcing one-suiters.

It seems necessary without other gadgets over the double....which I hope this thread won't hijack into.

Here is my opinion of this situation. The traditional view is that redouble should be used on this hand with 10+ HCP regardless of fit. The modern view, in my understanding, is that it denies a fit and suggests doubling them for penalty whenever possible. With no fit for partner's suit, there might be a killing to be had in defense of any contract by them, without a making game on for our side.

The modern treatment of course is to have a gadget to show a strong hand with a fit, such as the Jordan 2nt convention. That way you can differentiate between strength with a fit (2NT) and strength without a fit (XX).

If the auction reveals later that you have a secondary fit, then of course you should go after your own contract rather than defending.

[gwnn]

The shorter, the better.

[SimonFa]

gwnn, on 2012-March-11, 11:36, said:

The shorter, the better.

That's good to know. I haven't read any analysis on this subject just the odd comment and that's what I figured out when faced with the problem.

[ggwhiz]

I have had problems over time with partners that redouble on the min values instead of bidding a proper 1nt or 2x.

The redouble MUST desire to punish (at least) a couple of things but it's just my chosen style and not necessarily best, ie. a game forcing 1 suiter may have no other forcing entry into the auction for some but my 2 level new suit is forcing.

Still, IMO redoubling instead of bidding 1nt or 2x constructive is a common failing.

[HighLow21]

ggwhiz, on 2012-March-11, 16:17, said:

I have had problems over time with partners that redouble on the min values instead of bidding a proper 1nt or 2x.

The redouble MUST desire to punish (at least) a couple of things but it's just my chosen style and not necessarily best, ie. a game forcing 1 suiter may have no other forcing entry into the auction for some but my 2 level new suit is forcing.

Still, IMO redoubling instead of bidding 1nt or 2x constructive is a common failing.

I agree with ggwhiz on this entirely. One of my favorite scenarios is when I'm in 4th seat with the auction 1M-X-XX to me, and I'm sitting there with the other major and a decent hand (say, 6-10 HCP).

This tells me unequivocally that the redouble was (most incorrectly) based on a fit and a minimum response, not a strong response with no fit.

A very common result of this incorrect redouble is that opener doubles us for penalty in our best suit holding AKx, thinking the defense will be murder. And we waltz home with a game contract at the 2 level when they were cold for 4 of their major. This kind of thing happens all the time, and 99% of the ATB goes to the redoubler.

[Charlie Yu]

So playing 1♠xx with a 5-0 fit is a good idea?

[aguahombre]

Charlie Yu, on 2012-March-11, 22:45, said:

So playing 1♠xx with a 5-0 fit is a good idea?

probably. But don't be silly. Only old fashioned folks like us would pass out the redouble, because partner didn't choose to take out.

[Statto]

Charlie Yu, on 2012-March-11, 22:45, said:

So playing 1♠xx with a 5-0 fit is a good idea?

Yep, a huge game bonus awaits if we make...

[SimonFa]

Statto, on 2012-March-11, 23:00, said:

Yep, a huge game bonus awaits if we make...

As it happened partner had AKxxxx for a very nice 12 IMPS.

[ggwhiz]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-11, 22:51, said:

probably. But don't be silly. Only old fashioned folks like us would pass out the redouble, because partner didn't choose to take out.

Hand #3 from It's Your Call in January makes yours the more modern treatment. Perhaps people are redoubling on more marginal hands these days.

http://www.cs.sfu.ca...eq=58&alt=c.pck

BTW, The above is a fun addition to It's Your Call run out of Vancouver.

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2012-March-12, 09:21, said:

Hand #3 from It's Your Call in January makes yours the more modern treatment. Perhaps people are redoubling on more marginal hands these days.

http://www.cs.sfu.ca...eq=58&alt=c.pck

BTW, The above is a fun addition to It's Your Call run out of Vancouver.

That, and the same one in the ACBL Bulletin recently, involves a passed-hand balancing double. The one who is leaving in the redouble is sitting behind the opener (who redoubled his own opening 1H bid.

P (1H) P (P)
X (XX) P!.....was the "It's your Call" situation. Expert consensus, the pass is to play.

However:
(1S) X (XX) P!.....where I doubt one pair in fifty would agree the pass is to play. Pard and I are pretty much alone on that one.